Delhi High Court
Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Orissa Cement Ltd. on 13 September, 2000
Equivalent citations: 2001 117 TAXMAN 48 Delhi
Author: A Pasayat
JUDGMENT
Arijit Pasayat, C.J.
At the instance of the revenue, following questions have been referred by the Tribunal, Delhi Bench C, under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for opinion of this court:
"1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the excess of dividend reserve available after adjusting the actual amount of dividends declared should be included in the capital base for the purpose of calculating net chargeable profit under the Surtax Act, 1964 ?
2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the reserve for doubtful debts should be included in the capital base for the purpose of calculating net chargeable profit under the Surtax Act, 1964 ?
3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the excess provision after taking into consideration the tax liability due from the assessee-company in terms of Second Schedule to the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964 shall be considered for the purpose of the statutory deduction for calculating the net chargeable profits ?"
2. All these questions have been dealt with by the Apex Court in several cases and, therefore, it is not necessary to go into factual aspects of the case in detail.
2. All these questions have been dealt with by the Apex Court in several cases and, therefore, it is not necessary to go into factual aspects of the case in detail.
3. So far as the first question is concerned, decision of the Apex Court in Indian Tube Co. (P) Ltd. v. CIT (1992) 194 ITR 102 (SC) has dealt with a similar question. Following the view expressed in the said case, we answer the question in the affirmative in favour of assessee and against the revenue.
3. So far as the first question is concerned, decision of the Apex Court in Indian Tube Co. (P) Ltd. v. CIT (1992) 194 ITR 102 (SC) has dealt with a similar question. Following the view expressed in the said case, we answer the question in the affirmative in favour of assessee and against the revenue.
4. So far as the second question is concerned, the matter came to be examined by the Apex Court in two decisions in CIT v. Jyoti Ltd. (1996) 219 ITR 388 (SC) and State Bank of Patiala v. CIT (1996) 219 ITR 706 (SC). Following the aforesaid decisions, we answer the question in the affirmative, in favour of the assessee and against the revenue.
4. So far as the second question is concerned, the matter came to be examined by the Apex Court in two decisions in CIT v. Jyoti Ltd. (1996) 219 ITR 388 (SC) and State Bank of Patiala v. CIT (1996) 219 ITR 706 (SC). Following the aforesaid decisions, we answer the question in the affirmative, in favour of the assessee and against the revenue.
5. So far as the third question is concerned, decisions of the Apex Court in Karamchand Premchand (P) Ltd. v. CIT (1993) 200 ITR 268 (SC) and CIT v. Duncan Bros. & Co. Ltd. (1996) 219 ITR 121 (SC) dealt with the issue. Following the decisions in the aforesaid cases, we answer the question in the affirmative in favour of assessee and against the revenue.
5. So far as the third question is concerned, decisions of the Apex Court in Karamchand Premchand (P) Ltd. v. CIT (1993) 200 ITR 268 (SC) and CIT v. Duncan Bros. & Co. Ltd. (1996) 219 ITR 121 (SC) dealt with the issue. Following the decisions in the aforesaid cases, we answer the question in the affirmative in favour of assessee and against the revenue.
6. The reference application is disposed of accordingly.
6. The reference application is disposed of accordingly.
